The newest way to slam a belief you disagree with — or maybe it’s not so new — is to call it “religious.” For example, “Market Fundamentalism is a quasi-religious faith that unregulated markets will somehow always produce the best possible results,” and so is global warming (“The only difference between the religions right and the religious left, is that the religious right worships a man, and the religious left worships . . . Mother Nature”). As is evidence-based medicine (“as religious as possible . . . just another excuse, really — to sneer at people”). And then there’s the religion of Darwinism.
I encountered an extreme example of this sort of thing recently, from columnist Rod Dreher, who writes disapprovingly of “(Climate) science as religion” — on a religious website called Beliefnet (which has, under the heading, “My Faith,” the options Christianity, Buddhism, Catholic, Hinduism, Mormon, Judiasm, Islam, Holistic, and Angels. Dreher actually appears to be a supporter of climate science here; he’s criticizing a dissent-suppressing attitude that he sees, not the actual work that’s being done by the scientists in the field.
Not new, I guess, but I think that when “Beliefnet” is using “religious” as a term of disparagement, it’s really gone a bit too far…
8 responses so far
1 anniemargret // Jan 9, 2010 at 6:43 pm
Well, there are those that still use the term, ’schizophrenic’ incorrectly. It has nothing to do with being two-faced.
But to your essay. You are correct of course. There is an hysteria across this nation about religion that in better times should not be happening. The use of the term, ‘religious’ in many instances is denigrating in its use.
I find myself in a complex uneasy situation, and I have a feeling I am not alone. I am still ‘religious’ in the sense that I still believe in God, in a Creator, a Divine Presence, the Source, etc… I still pray for guidance and clarity of thought. I still the majority of religious people in our country are good people, doing good things.
Religion as a political force however, is something else. The religious right within the GOP for a long time held the reins for that party, and I see now that they are trying to wrench free from it. That is a good thing. There is a reason, as wise one, that the Founding Fathers, wanted separation of church and state. The Karl Rove tactics of courting the religious right is finally dying a natural death. People don’t want to be forced against their will by threats of damnation, etc…
However, there is another swing to demonize all religious people as nutters, or weak. Some of the greatest minds and intelligences on this earth are people who believe in God. But believing and working with a purpose, following Christ’s teachings, doing good when and where you can, is a far cry from throwing other religions under the boot, or demonizing people who are agnostics or atheists.
We have to grow up in this country. We will never be the land of the free and the home of the brave is we cannot learn to respect and tolerate (we don’t always have to understand) other’s beliefs or non-beliefs. There is nothing wrong with the word, ‘religious’ – it simply means a person is conscientious and earnest.
But it can border on fanaticism. We can tackle the problems this country has without making anyone feel less important, or less useful, in the ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ religion, or ‘unchurched’ etc… Beliefnet is a site, I think, that uses religion as a guiding principle….but often allies with politics. Dangerous stuff.
2 Moderate // Jan 9, 2010 at 8:54 pm
anniemargret,
What evidence do you have that the GOP is wresting control from the Religious Right? There may be a temporary lull in “Culture Wars” – because we’re in a recession and people would rather whine about jobs – but the GOP is doubling down on hard-right conservatism as a strategy.
When I see the GOP promote candidates like Mike Castle, Mark Kirk, and Charlie Crist with similar zeal as they do the Tea Crew, then I’ll believe they’re changing.
3 anniemargret // Jan 9, 2010 at 9:31 pm
moderate: I think there is a strong need for them to recognize that the religious right in their party is a sure loser. I think Frum is trying to address it here on this blog, although you are correct, of course, that their voices are loud and strong still.
Yet, I think pragmatism will win the day. As we inch closer to a major election like the presidency in 3 years I think there will be an all out ‘war’ between those who understand that Rovian politics are done…caput. The country has changed dramatically since Bush’s second re-election, and while the Palinites and religious right will continue to make a lot of noise, the party leaders (not sure anymore who they are) will double down and fight this leaning.
Americans don’t want noisy negativists. If Obama can do a dent in the unemployment stats, get a fair grip on increasing intelligence for anti-terrorism tactics, and pass some form of healthcare reform, the Republicans are going to have their work cut out for them.
The last thing they need is more Sarah Palin and her culture wars, or have Beck/Rush speak for the party.
Then again…I could be wrong!
4 COProgressive // Jan 9, 2010 at 9:34 pm
Andrew, don’t be so sensitive. Religious can be either a noun or a adjective. I think your offence is because you think those using the term are using the noun form when they are really using it as an adjective.
Main Entry: religious
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural religious
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French religius, from religius, adjective
Date: 13th century
: a member of a religious order under monastic vows
Main Entry: 1re·li·gious
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈli-jəs\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French religius, from Latin religiosus, from religio
Date: 13th century
1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity
2 : of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances
3 a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful b : fervent, zealous
I think you should think of what you consider “The newest putdown” for what it is, the adjective for “relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality”.
Chill out man. No one is “putting down” anyone’s faith.
5 JeninCT // Jan 9, 2010 at 11:12 pm
I agree COprogressive, Andrew. Please don’t take it personally, but I have a religious devotion to Lindt chocolate.
6 handworn // Jan 10, 2010 at 1:52 pm
Ironically, liberalism has many of the trappings of some religion itself. Dogma, orthodoxy, guiltmongering so as to sell absolution, original sin, and analogues of theology (sociological deconstruction, for example) come to mind.
7 advocatusdiaboli // Jan 10, 2010 at 11:46 pm
The extrapolation fo the term “religious” to apply to unwavering faith and zealousness in secular matters shouldn’t bother Mr Gelman. Religion is in part an unwavering faith in the unprovable and unseen and it is that blind faith that users of the word appear to be referring to when they are applying it to others. Those who use it in that way seem to be commenting on human behavior and do not seem to be intending to disparage religion per se.
8 Secular Right » The Church of Climate Change (Again) // Jan 17, 2010 at 12:23 pm
[...] Andrew Sullivan, I read that the FrumForum’s Andrew Gelman is unhappy about the way that “the newest way to slam a belief you disagree with — or maybe it’s not so [...]
You must log in to post a comment.